Councillor Bob Kilmister

The cabinet of Pembrokeshire County Council agreed this week in secret session to the following:

“That the equity share option in Bluestone resorts Ltd be taken up and that the Director of Finance and Leisure, in consultation with the Head of Legal and Committee Services, be authorised to take all necessary legal actions for the Council in relation to the restructuring of the Company.”

As a Councillor I cannot comment on the Pink Pages which were provided for Councillors as I could be breaking my code of conduct.  I am however convinced that we have not been given all the information and that the Chairman of the Economic Committee and it’s members should have called this decision in and subjected it to proper scrutiny.  The Chairman refused to do so and could not answer a simple question which another Councillor put to him on Friday.  I think he should resign as he clearly is not doing his job. 

I suggest that you follow the link below which provides much more information than was provided to Councillors and is in the Public Domain.  I have no idea who this person is but he knows more about this than any back bench Councillor in Pembrokeshire.  I also suggest that you view “Old Grumpy’s” comments about this on his website.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pembrokeshire_county_council_sha

http://freespace.virgin.net/oldgrumpy.mike/December%203%202009.html

 I would welcome your comments about this.

This application which was first lodged in April 2008 was finally heard by Pembrokeshire County Councils Planning Committee on Tuesday 03/11/09.  I am a member of that committee so I have been unable to make any public comments until that meeting.  The application was given approval with a total of 27 conditions. 

I was responsible for drafting 4 of these conditions, with the help of the Officers, although one of them was amended slightly by other committee members.  This was condition 2 where the exact machinery to be used was removed.

This application has divided the community and so everyone can be aware of exactly what I said at the meeting, details of my speech are copied below.  Please do not hesitate to get in touch if you have any queries.

This application has split opinion within my area. There are those who favour farm diversification, recognising just how difficult it is for farmers at this time. These people in the main do not live very close to or are not affected personally by the application.  However 6 letters of support come from within what I consider to be the affected area, which is significant. 

There are those who oppose this scheme because it impacts on their Amenity.  They are concerned about noise, dust and the possible visual and wildlife impact.  These people in the main live adjacent or very close to the site. 

There are those who oppose this scheme because they believe it will have a detrimental affect on their business. These are exclusively those who run tourist based operations.  These are a Caravan Park and 4 other business’s who run or are in the process of already building holiday cottage accommodation.  I believe that there are currently 6 units of accommodation and a further 8 proposed which have current planning permission. 

It is clear from reading the complete file yesterday which took me in excess of two hours that this is far from a cut and dried matter. The application would have been recommended for refusal on noise but for a noise survey that was completed by the applicant.  The survey has not however measured any background noise at this site currently.  This is extremely important and I refer members to page 12 item 3.18.  Without the background noise level being recorded we have no baseline data.  

It is clear that the maximum noise level would be 67 db during the installation of the bund and the one week per year when crushing was taking place.  Many residents are very concerned about the other 51 weeks of the year and as yet there is no figure available to assess the decibel level. The Tourist business’s also want to know exactly when this week of operation will take place, so they can warn potential clients in advance.  I personally think it is reasonable to give a minimum of 8 weeks notice.  

The noise levels in the report using similar machines to that envisaged in this application show levels up to 93 db.  The report then concludes that the bund and the distance to the nearest properties will reduce this to 63 db.  This is 4 decibels away from the maximum.  This site is not straight forward as several properties affected are in fact higher than the proposed site.  Noise here appears to reverberate around the valley and I have no confidence that the agreed sound levels will be achieved.  1 resident also has a studio that she uses to work in, that is much closer to the site than is mapped.  

The conditions however do clearly specify the highest level that can be reached and if I was the applicant I would be extremely uneasy based on this report that the agreed levels will be met.  The sound level recorded 3 metres away from the machine by the time it reaches affected properties has to have reduced by 28% to meet the minimum requirement.With the wind in the wrong direction – any result could occur! 

There is no doubt in my mind that the adjoining residents will lose amenity, the question is just how much.  If the noise were just for 7 days in each calendar year then I would have no difficulty with this application.  Although the crushing will take place for 7 days other works will carry on for possibly another 51 weeks.  If the machinery is limited to a farm tractor outside of this one week then again on balance I feel that is what one can reasonably expect from a farm, provided we have recorded sound levels to back this up.  JCB’s however are a very different story and I think it is essential that the machinery proposed by the applicant in this report becomes a condition.  Reversing beepers should also be not allowed which is already in the proposed conditions. 

I am not concerned at the traffic implications because until recently this farm had a large diary herd and an articulated milk tanker regularly visited.  There are proposed conditions for transport which meet all my concerns. 

The report on page 14 item 3.32 concerns tourism. Llanychaer has a unique selling point, which is its peace and quiet.  The turnover from this proposed application will be less than that generated by the tourist Industry.  The applicants stand to gain while 5 other business may lose.

The Village is divided between the National Park and this planning authority by the B4313.  If the application had been on the other side of the road then it would not have got this far.  The National Park’s view is very clear cut and I do not think this authority has addressed their objections. 

So what is my conclusion?

I am prepared to recommend approval with the addition of four new conditions.  These are:

The dates of crushing to be agreed 8 weeks in advance and communicated to residents. 

After construction of the bund and excluding the 7 days that crushing takes place, only a farm tractor with a 2.5 tonne loading shovel at the front to be used in conjunction with packing.  No movements of spoil to take place outside of the week crushing takes place. 

That this authority determine the base background noise level before work commences and this plus 10 db is the agreed maximum noise level when crushing is not taking place. 

That the applicant arranges for sound levels to be recorded in conjunction with this local authority for the seven days that crushing takes place.

This is the speech I gave to the Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Friday 25/09/09.  They subsequently agreed to go ahead with the necessary statutory notices to introduce car parking charges in Fishguard, Narbeth, Newport, Milford Haven and Pembroke Dock.  I was able to speak for 4 minutes but not vote, as I am not a member of this committee.  There was an excellent debate with contributions from Sian James and Moira Lewis plus some excellent input from Myles Pepper, Sue Parkins and Rhys Sinnott who are Committee members.  It was very fairly chaired by Peter Stock but I was extremely disappointed with their final decision.  This is however not the end of the matter and I will looking for other ways to try and prevent it happening. 

My Speech:

In my 4 minutes I would like to concentrate on the financial aspects of these proposals. I spent 29 years in the retail trade, 12 as a store manager for J Sainsbury Plc at a number of very different stores.  Most of these stores had an individual turnover which exceeds all of the Town Centres listed with the exception of Haverfordwest.  As a result I believe I am very qualified to speak on this subject. 

Supermarkets NEVER charge for car parking unless they are forced to by a local authority.  There is a very solid financial reason for this and it is quite simply profit. They realise that free parking is ESSENTIAL to their business success.   

Local Authorities across Britain ignore these facts in pursuit of additional revenue.  They then complain that Supermarkets and out of Town shopping centres have killed their retail centres.  This is Rubbish!  Car Park charges, poor parking facilities, high rents & rates combine to kill off the Independent retailer.  Soon Town Centres are full of empty premises and the decline accelerates.  Councillors then blame the big retailers and internet shopping.  The blame really lies with their lack of understanding of what makes retail tick and their desire for a quick buck. 

If you look at the way Haverfordwest is developing my argument makes even greater sense.  The retail shops outside of the town centre all regulate their parking but do not charge.  They are expanding and more major names are promised.  Further development will probably follow in the local plan.  What is happening in central Haverfordwest meanwhile, is it thriving in the same way?     Fishguard, Milford Haven, Narbeth, Newport and Pembroke Dock will all decline sharply unless you reject these proposals. 

It is very easy to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.  Narbeth is a prime example.  Lots of good Independent retailers and free car parking has brought about a town centre shopping experience which many are prepared to travel to, even from outside this County.  We should be concentrating on replicating this example in Pembrokeshire and not killing it.   

I would particularly like members of this Committee to look at the lack of detailed financial information.   There is no cost benefit analysis.  How can Cabinet and this Committee make decisions without the relevant information?  This information MUST be in the public domain before a decision is taken.  This should be available for every site proposed. 

I represent a very rural ward. The third largest ward in Pembrokeshire.  All of my constituents have to travel to get most of their shopping needs.  There is very limited Public Transport and local car parking charges will simply represent a new STEALTH TAX on rural communities.  Rural communities are already suffering considerably in the current financial climate, yet this proposal will make matters worse. 

In addition  Puncheston & Little Newcastle areas have a choice as to where they drive to  for shopping.  Many currently choose Fishguard but any charges will in my view simply send them to Tesco & Morrisons in Haverfordwest.  The affect on Fishguard will be considerable.  Fishguard cannot cope with a drop in revenue as most retail outlets are already struggling.  All three Community Councils in my ward STRONGLY oppose these proposed charges. A very large number of my constituents travel to Newport for their Medical services. The proposed charges at this site would be a HEALTH TAX.  The Welsh Assembly Government has already acted to stop Hospital car parking charges but we are now proposing to introduce Surgery charges at this site.  This is fundamentally wrong. 

I personally use the Fishguard facilities a great deal and I am convinced that any charges will have a devastating affect on the retail economy.  Never has there been a worse time to consider charging.  Even the extremely poor Buchanan report makes recommendations which have been selectively ignored.  Why spend money on consultants and then ignore what they say without good reason? 

I have not mentioned off street parking or residents parking due to lack of time but these also represent serious issues in all locations. 

I implore members of this Committee to report back to Cabinet that no new car parking charges should be introduced in Pembrokeshire.

Pembrokeshire County Council cabinet will meet on Monday 07/09/09 to decide on possible new car parking charges.  There has been no discussion on this recently and Bob Kilmister has written the following letter to the Cabinet.  We will see what happens!  I would love to hear your views.

Dear Cabinet Members,

I would like you to take into account when making your decision on Monday 07/09/09 the following views.  I apologise for the length of this letter.

I spent 29 years in the retail trade with J Sainsbury Plc managing for 12 years units with a turnover that ranged from £5.2 million per annum to £18 million per annum (1988 to 2000).  I managed both town centre and out of town units and as a result I believe I have considerable experience and expertise in this area.

Supermarkets NEVER charge for car parking unless they are forced to by local authorities.  They are not charitable organisations and they are run to make maximum profit at all times.  Units where parking charges apply, trade at a considerably lower level than those where no charges apply.  Local authorities do not seem to understand this concept because they see car parking as a possible positive revenue stream.  However it is my view that by imposing these charges, they harm the town centres that they should be protecting.  They then blame the supermarket for destroying local trade, when in reality it is their lack of understanding of that trade which has caused the problem.  The fact that most local authorities charge relatively high rates for parking does not alter my assertion.  To show this point effectively I will provide the following example.  Dudley in the West Midlands used to have a thriving town centre and market.  When a redundant steel works was made into a shopping centre the local authority maintained their car parking charges whereas the shopping centre had none.  Dudley town centre is now a ghost town but the shopping centre goes from strength to strength.  There are many other examples elsewhere in the Country.  This authority does not need to follow other local authorities and make the same mistakes as they have already done.  The Independent retail sector needs considerable help to survive but where it thrives it puts much more back into the economy than any authority might gain in short term revenue.

I represent a very rural area.  It is broadly split into two.  Dinas is midway between Fishguard and Newport but does have two shops.  It is however extremely difficult to purchase all your food requirements so travelling to either centre is a requirement.  There is a bus service but carrying groceries on a bus limits the elderly and so most use a car.  Imposing car park charges will therefore be a stealth tax for these residents.  Newport car park also serves the local surgery where most of Dinas Cross residents are registered.  Again this will impose a stealth tax on their health. Dinas Cross Community Council discussed this last night and is opposed to any charges for these reasons.  I believe they are writing to John Davies but their letter will not arrive until Monday morning.

The rest of the area I represent is completely rural with no shops and no bus service. Residents here can choose to shop in Fishguard, Newport or Haverfordwest as all are roughly the same distance.  Currently large numbers choose Fishguard.  Imposing car parking charges will send most of these instead to the large supermarkets in Haverfordwest.  Again the proposed car parking charges represent a stealth tax against rural communities.  They already have less facilities, are hit by government fuel policy and now you propose to tax them once again. The Cwm Gwaun CC met on Wednesday and are opposed to the charges and again they are writing to object.  Puncheston CC does not meet until next week and so has not responded because they have not had the opportunity.

The report to Cabinet does not contain any financial figures. I cannot see how you can make a judgement without seeing projections.  How much will the ticket machines cost including installation?  How will these machines be serviced and the money collected?  Who will patrol the car parks to ensure that regulations are being enforced?  How much will vandalism to the machines cost?  Super glue in coin slots can be an extremely common occurrence.  All of this bureaucracy and extra service provision costs and when the proposed charge in Fishguard and Newports case is mainly 30p, I fail to understand how this will produce a reasonable revenue stream.  It will adversely affect the Town concerned in the middle of a recession but contribute very little to Council finances.

The Buchanan report suggest and I quote “We recommend that no charges be introduced in the West Street car park until the new supermarket has been trading and the impacts of this can be better understood.”   Why has this recommendation been ignored and charges proposed for this car park?

I have made no mention of off street parking problems that will inevitably happen.  I have also only mentioned Fishguard and Newport as these are the places affected by those I represent.  I am sure others will have similar arguments for their localities.

I would request that the Cabinet sends this matter to the Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee so it can look at all the facts in a proper manner and then make appropriate recommendations. 

If Cabinet does approve these charges then I would request that the members of the Environment and Overview Scrutiny Committee call this matter in.

Regards

Bob Kilmister

Dinas Cross Ward

councilfocus18dinasfrontwelsh.pdf  Click here to read.  Welsh edition for Dinas Cross , front page.

councilfocus18dinasbackwelsh.pdf Click here to read.  Welsh edition for Dinas Cross, back page.

councilfocus18ruralwelsh.pdf Click here to read.  Welsh edition for Llanychaer, Cwm Gwaun, Puncheston, Tufton & Little Newcastle.

councilfocus18rural1.pdf  Click here to read. Llanychaer, Cwm Gwaun, Puncheston, Tufton & Little Newcastle edition.

councilfocus18dinas.pdf   Click here to read .  Dinas Cross English edition.

There are now two seperate FOCUS newsletters for the ward.  One is published for the Dinas Cross area and one is published for the rest of the ward.

These are available in Welsh.  Please click on the links above to read the appropriate document.

Focus Special Dinas Cross National Park Deposit Plan  Click here to read.

I have delivered a special FOCUS for Dinas Cross on the National Park Deposit Plan because I think the forms are too complicated.  Homes that receive this normally by post will NOT have received this.  Please click on the link above to get your copy.  Remember the closing date for submissions is the 29/07/09 at 17.00 hours.

Bob Kilmister believes that the Pembrokeshire Coastal National Park should lose the right to determine planning matters.  Bob thinks the National Park does a wonderful job in other areas but is very unhappy with the way it controls planning.  “It is an unelected body and therefore should not be in control of planning matters.  It has to be answerable to the people.  That is the basis of democracy and this quango is appointed by either the County Council or the Welsh Assembly.  Residents should have the right to vote them out if they believe they are doing a poor job”.

 Do you agree with Bob?

Please vote in our survey on the left hand column.

Cwm Gwaun Deposit Plan Response Click here to read.

Dinas Cross Deposit Plan Response Click here to read.

Bob Kilmister in conjunction with Cwm Gwaun Community Council and Dinas Cross Community Council has sent in their formal response to the Pembrokeshire Coastal National Park Deposit Plan.  Please click on the relevant file to read this in detail.

 Bob Kilmister and the Community Councils agreed that the National Parks plans were not acceptable, as they did not provide the basis for a sustainable future.  They treat the area as a museum and do not form the basis of a coherent plan up to 2021.  They have submitted alternative plans which include Retirement housing, Affordable housing and Allotments.  It will be interesting to see the National Park response.  It is very likely that further public meetings will take place in both communities when the National Park gives it’s formal response.

In conjunction with the Community Council and Paul Davies AM we are trying to get the police and the Trunk Road Agency to tackle this issue.

The Community Council have raised the funds to install Vehicle Activated Signs but the Trunk Road Agency will not let them and the County Council install them.

The Camera Safety Partnership have divided Dinas Cross into three and say as a result it does not qualify to be monitored. If it were treated as one place then it comfortably meets all the criteria.  Why did they divide it into three?  If they had attending our recent meeting they could have explained but instead they and the TRA decided to snub us.

 It is incredibly frustrating to try and get action or at least some progress on this issue.  I have written to the Chief Constable and the TRA as has Paul Davies AM who attended our recent meeting and has been extremely positive.  This is not a political issue and I thank him for trying to help us.